Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

monthlyreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#61

Post by Semiapies »

seanl wrote: post #57
Semiapies wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You almost have a case for WW1, though I find it hilarious that people sniffing about totalitarian communism not being "real" socialism so smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism. WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist". Mind, I didn't mention the wars; I actually had in mind the people who died en masse in "peacetime". "I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of dea…

WW2 requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist" Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them. I've encountered reasonable arguments that the first half of the 20th century was dominated by a single protracted world war with a lapse in explicit hostilities in the 1920s. The rise of any ideology has to…

"Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them."

This is not required.

I'm afraid I have to view the rest of your response, straw-manning arguments I haven't even made, as pure trolling; ta.

EDIT: Been on the net almost 20 years, and I've come to accept that there's always going to be a class of person who'll wander up, recite one side of a script in his head, and declare victory when people realize what he's on to. :)

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#62

Post by rms »

lionhearted wrote: post #58
gnosis wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, a bloody revolution must inevitably result in an oppressive dictatorship. Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait... Anyway, I should be clear that I am not advocating bloody revolution (I'm against all violence except in clear cases of self-defense). And I very much doubt bloody revolution was what Einstein was advocating either. For that matter, I think you'll find very few advocate…

Edit: Ah, you edited and added more detail that you're more in favor of a peaceful transition. Okay, I'm with you on that - I think the bloody guerella communist takeover is always going to be a real mess. Rest of comment still stands if you're up for discussing, hope it's interesting and informative a bit. > Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait... Let me ask, seriously - I've done a lot…

I think a great deal of confusion with this issue is the assumption that someone that advocates socialism advocates 100% socialism. I wouldn't want to live in a fully left-libertarian (also called socialistic anarchism) society just like I wouldn't want to live in a fully right-libertarian society.

Hybrid systems are just so much more pragmatic. The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist? I think up to about 50% socialism (taxes used to redistribute wealth, not necessarily with welfare payments, but infrastrcture building, etc.) is probably desirable.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#63

Post by anamax »

gnosis wrote: post #42
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals. Then people saw what happened when you tried it. The foolhardy still believe it has never been tried successfully. Karl Popper saw this flawed reasoning and how it was never satisfied with any experiment (especially around Marxism) and made a strong case for a firm definition of the…

"Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals. Then people saw what happened when you tried it." Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare! Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitali…

> Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare!

Which way to people vote with their feet?

Yes, Western Europe is better than Eastern Europe is better than Africa/Middle East (except Israel), but that's a low bar.

And the US does it with a population that is far more diverse. (No, French and Italians aren't "diverse".)

Europe is starting to become diverse - I hope that it survives. (Did "the youths" stop burning cars in France or did we just stop hearing about it.)

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#64

Post by [deleted] »

Semiapies wrote: post #61
seanl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WW2 requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist" Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them. I've encountered reasonable arguments that the first half of the 20th century was dominated by a single protracted world war with a lapse in explicit hostilities in the 1920s. The rise of any ideology has to…

"Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them." This is not required. I'm afraid I have to view the rest of your response, straw-manning arguments I haven't even made, as pure trolling; ta. EDIT: Been on the net almost 20 years, and I've come to accept that there's always going to be a class of person who'll wander up,…

[deleted]

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#65

Post by Semiapies »

rms wrote: post #62
lionhearted wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: Ah, you edited and added more detail that you're more in favor of a peaceful transition. Okay, I'm with you on that - I think the bloody guerella communist takeover is always going to be a real mess. Rest of comment still stands if you're up for discussing, hope it's interesting and informative a bit. > Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait... Let me ask, seriously - I've done a lot…

I think a great deal of confusion with this issue is the assumption that someone that advocates socialism advocates 100% socialism. I wouldn't want to live in a fully left-libertarian (also called socialistic anarchism) society just like I wouldn't want to live in a fully right-libertarian society. Hybrid systems are just so much more pragmatic. The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist? I…

"The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist?"

By what definition? Everyone seems to have their own.

Einstein sure isn't talking about anything that looks remotely like the modern US or Europe.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#66

Post by prodigal_erik »

lionhearted wrote: post #48
gnosis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals. Then people saw what happened when you tried it." Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare! Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitali…

> Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitalism"). The problem is, the path to socialism was laid out by Marx as violent uprising against the capitalists. Then people are surprised that the newly minted generals and blood-covered revolutionaries aren't wise and decent rulers? I mean, what the heck did people expect? Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim Sung Il - I think t…

If they were utopians dreaming of socialist equality, they wouldn't have granted themselves and their cronies perks beyond any robber baron. They wouldn't have used secret police to terrorize the very class they set out to honor. No, when a system obviously ruled by corrupt thugs strays that far from its principles, I assume the rulers had always been corrupt thugs who paid lip service to the system to sway the masses and achieve power.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#67

Post by seanl »

Semiapies wrote: post #56
seanl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably the two world wars of the 20th century were a consequence of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, and between them deaths were nigh on 100 million. Of course you may well reject such an argument, as I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist were an inevitable consequence of their politico-economic structure. M…

You almost have a case for WW1, though I find it hilarious that people sniffing about totalitarian communism not being "real" socialism so smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism. WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist". Mind, I didn't mention the wars; I actually had in mind the people who died en masse in "peacetime". "I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of dea…

OK, so you significantly edited your reply, rather than do the same I'll respond again:

"smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism."

That mercantilism was a phase of capitalism is a common - though not universally accepted - point of view.

"WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist"."

Repeating myself somewhat, but that depends on how you attribute causation. That capitalism was in crisis in the 1930s is pretty uncontentious. That the effects of that crisis on Germany contributed to the rise of Nazism is also fairly uncontentious. The rest depends on how you weight those factors against others.

I appreciate that you are not open to the view that a non-murderous and non-totalitarian socialist society is possible. I myself am on the fence.

However I do strongly believe the first half of my argument: that capitalism begets death and destruction on a scale that exceeds the murderousness of the 20th century's totalitarian regimes (whether within 'wartime' or 'peacetime' matters not to me).

I hope that something better is possible. I accept that based on the empirical evidence we are screwed.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#69

Post by camccann »

Semiapies wrote: post #60
camccann wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Socialism", in simplest terms, means control of the "means of production" by workers or the general public, as opposed to a more limited group of owners. Note that an otherwise unrestrained free market economy wherein all corporations are required to be employee-owned would, by this definition, be completely socialist. Soviet-style centralized command economies can be technically called socialist in that the state,…

"Science", in simple terms, is an effort to explain the natural world. Note that creationist propaganda would, by this definition, be completely scientific. This, of course, is because I've chosen an absurd definition of science, not because of lazy thinking of the part of evolutionary biologists.

Okay, you missed my point completely, but never mind.

Arguments about terms with lots of emotional content but very ambiguous meanings tend to look more like people cheering for their local sports team more than like a meaningful discussion.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#70

Post by [deleted] »

Semiapies wrote: post #61
seanl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WW2 requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist" Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them. I've encountered reasonable arguments that the first half of the 20th century was dominated by a single protracted world war with a lapse in explicit hostilities in the 1920s. The rise of any ideology has to…

"Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them." This is not required. I'm afraid I have to view the rest of your response, straw-manning arguments I haven't even made, as pure trolling; ta. EDIT: Been on the net almost 20 years, and I've come to accept that there's always going to be a class of person who'll wander up,…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN